Clarence Thomas doubled down on presidential power

Justice Thomas Supports Expansive View of Executive Authority in 2025-2026 Term

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term addressed multiple disputes over the scope of presidential power. The Court issued rulings that both upheld and limited executive actions in areas including tariffs and immigration enforcement.

In *Learning Resources v. Trump*, the Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing tariffs without specific congressional approval. The majority held that the tariff authority at issue remained with Congress under the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. He argued that Congress could delegate powers related to raising armies and regulating external affairs to the president without violating the nondelegation doctrine, and that such delegations would not injure Congress constitutionally.

Six justices, including two appointed by Trump, joined the majority opinion limiting the tariff authority. Thomas maintained that the president could exercise the power unilaterally in those domains.

In *Mullin v. Doe*, the Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration could terminate temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which held that a plausible race-neutral explanation existed for the terminations and rejected claims of unconstitutional racial animus. Thomas joined the majority opinion in full. He also filed a separate concurrence stating that courts should not examine equal protection claims against presidential actions falling within the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority, even if those actions allegedly violate the Constitution.

The majority opinion in *Mullin v. Doe* already resolved the case in favor of the administration on narrower grounds. Thomas’s concurrence advanced a broader position that judicial review would not apply to the challenged actions.

During the term, the Court reviewed several challenges to executive actions taken by the Trump administration. In the tariffs dispute, the Court restricted the claimed authority. In the immigration case, the Court upheld the administration’s decision. Thomas participated in both matters, joining the majority in one and dissenting in the other while advocating positions that would have sustained the executive actions on wider grounds than those adopted by the Court.

The decisions left the president with authority affirmed in some areas and constrained in others, depending on the specific statutory and constitutional questions presented.